ORDER By the Court.-Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected by Am-Sabha of the concerned village on 15th January. 2007 as Anganbari Sevika and thereafter the name of the petitioner was sent for approval by the Government. The name of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents as Anganbari Sevika and Respondent No.9 was appointed as Anganbari Sevika of the village in question and therefore present petition has been preferred. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was validly and legally selected by Am-sabha. which was held on 15th January. 2007 in Madgari North Tola. village Madgari, district Garhwa. Thereafter, the petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika diligently, honestly and to the satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sevika keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner is a resident of the concerned village and she was fulfilling all the criteria for appointment as Anganbari Sevika. Educational qualification of the candidates were also considered by the concerned Am-sabha and thereafter the petitioner was selected and therefore. services of the petitioner can not be terminated and the respondent No.9 can not be appointed. 3. Counsel for the State submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that initially an Am-Sabha was held on 6th November. 2006 and the respondent No. 9 was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika. Her name was recommended for approval which was contested by the petitioner and second Am-Sabha was held on 15th January. 2007. In fact name of respondent No. 9 was already recommended by the previous Am-Sabha, which was held on 6th November. 2006 and there is no reason for convening the second Am-Sabha on 15th January. 2007. The second Am-Sabha was held on 15th January, 2007 and the petitioner's name was recommended and on scrutiny it was found that marks obtained by the petitioner was lower than the marks obtained by the respondent No.9, Petitioner has secured 46.2%, while respondent No.9 has secured 47.6%. Rest of the criteria for selection of both the candidates were same and therefore respondent No.9 was selected as an Anganbari Sevika and the name of the petitioner was not accepted by the State Authority. 4. Rest of the criteria for selection of both the candidates were same and therefore respondent No.9 was selected as an Anganbari Sevika and the name of the petitioner was not accepted by the State Authority. 4. I have heard counsel appearing for the respondent No.9, who has canvassed that in fact respondent No. 9 was already selected by the first Am-Sabha dated 6th November, 2006. Her name was already sent for approval, but unnecessarily the State Authorities have ordered for holding second Am-Sabha. In fact, the petitioner has obtained lower marks than the respondent No. 9 and therefore, rightly, the petitioner's name has not been recommended by the respondents and accordingly,' the respondent No.9 has been appointed as Anganbari Sevika of the concerned Anganbari Centre. 5. Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 see no reason to entertain this writ petition for the following reasons : (I) Am Sabha was held for appointment of the concerned Anganbari of on 6th November, 2006 and respondent No. 9 was selected and her name was recommended. It appears that there is some allegations, mainly by the petitioner and therefore, the State Authorities ordered for the second Am-Sabha, which was held on 16th January, 2007, in which the present petitioner was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika and her name was sent for approval. (II) While approval process was going on it was found that all the other criteria for selection of both the candidates. i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.9, are same, as because they were residing in the very same village and both of them belonged to the same community and the only criteria left out was the marks obtained by the candidates. As per Annexure C to the counter affidavit, marks obtained by the petitioner was lower than that was obtained by respondent No. 9 and therefore candidature of respondent No.9 was accepted by the high ranking officers of the State and the petitioner's name was not approved. (III) Looking to these aspects of the matter there is no illegality committed by the respondent in appointing respondent No. 9 as Anganbari Sevika. Moreover, it appears that in fact in the first Am-Sabha dated 6th November. 2011, respondent No. 9 was already selected and her name was also recommended for approval. In view of this there should not be any second Am-Sabha. Moreover, it appears that in fact in the first Am-Sabha dated 6th November. 2011, respondent No. 9 was already selected and her name was also recommended for approval. In view of this there should not be any second Am-Sabha. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons there is no legally vested right in the petitioner to be selected as an Anganbari Sevika. 7. This writ petition is therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Petition dismissed.